395 U.S. 367 (1969)
The Red Lion Broadcasting Company is licensed to operate radio station WGCB in Pennsylvania.1 On November 27, 1964, WGCB carried a fifteen-minute broadcast by the Reverend Billy James Hargis as part of a Christian Crusade series.2 During the program Hargis discussed Fred J. Cook's book Goldwater—Extremist on the Right and stated that Cook had been fired by a newspaper for making false charges against city officials, had worked for a Communist-affiliated publication, had defended Alger Hiss and attacked J. Edgar Hoover and the Central Intelligence Agency, and had written the book to smear Barry Goldwater.3
Cook learned of the broadcast and demanded free reply time from the station. The station refused.4 After an exchange of letters among Cook, Red Lion, and the FCC, the Commission ruled that the Hargis broadcast constituted a personal attack, that Red Lion had failed to send Cook a tape, transcript, or summary and offer him reply time, and that the station must provide reply time whether or not Cook paid for it.5 The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the FCC's position.6
Not long after the Red Lion litigation began, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to make the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and to specify rules for political editorials.7 After receiving comments, the FCC adopted the regulations in 1967.8 The rules require a licensee, within a reasonable time after a personal attack during discussion of a controversial public issue, to notify the person attacked, provide a script or tape or summary, and offer a reasonable opportunity to respond.9 Similar obligations apply when a licensee endorses or opposes a candidate in an editorial.10
The Radio Television News Directors Association and others challenged the regulations in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which held them unconstitutional as abridging freedoms of speech and press.11 The two cases were consolidated for review by the Supreme Court.12
Whether the Federal Communications Commission possesses statutory authority under the Communications Act to impose the fairness doctrine and its component personal attack and political editorializing regulations?13
Under 47 U.S.C. §§ 303 and 303(r), the FCC may promulgate rules necessary to carry out the public interest standard in granting and renewing licenses, and the 1959 amendment to § 315 ratified the fairness doctrine as inherent in that standard.14
Yes. The FCC acted within its authority when it required Red Lion to provide reply time to Cook after the Hargis broadcast and when it adopted the 1967 regulations following a notice of proposed rulemaking and comment period.15 The public interest mandate has long included the duty to present opposing views on controversial issues, as the Commission has enforced since the 1920s through license conditions.16 Congress explicitly endorsed this approach in the 1959 legislation amending section 315.17
The FCC possesses the requisite statutory authority to impose the fairness doctrine and the 1967 regulations.18
Whether the fairness doctrine, the 1967 personal attack and political editorializing regulations, and their application to the Red Lion broadcast violate the First Amendment protections of speech and press?19
The First Amendment does not prohibit the government from requiring broadcasters to share their frequencies with others.20 Nor does it bar requirements to provide reply time for personal attacks and political editorials.21 This follows from the scarcity of broadcast frequencies and the paramount right of the public to receive diverse views in an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.22
No. The application of the fairness doctrine to the Hargis broadcast on WGCB did not abridge Red Lion's speech rights because the station, as a licensee using a scarce frequency, must serve as a proxy for the community and present opposing viewpoints when a personal attack occurs.23 The 1967 regulations similarly require only reasonable opportunities for response after notice and do not constitute censorship, prior restraint, or government domination of programming.24 The scarcity of frequencies justifies these obligations to promote the public's collective right to suitable access to ideas rather than allowing licensees to monopolize the medium.25
The fairness doctrine, the 1967 regulations, and their application to the Red Lion broadcast do not violate the First Amendment.26